Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Perkins alias Morley


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 00:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Peter Perkins alias Morley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable obscure vassal/servant to a 14th century baron, claimed as ancestor by a non-notable family. Entire article is based on unreliable 19th century family histories and the majority is an examination/promotion of a dodgy genealogical hypothesis from that time that the subject is identical to a distinct man who just happened to have the same given name. Flagged for improvement since 2011. Fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:V, WP:GNG. Agricolae (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Really, only one source is being cited and that source, "The Ancient History Of the Distinguished Surname Perkins An Essay in Two Parts by James Fulton Perkins" is, I think, a web post (https://web.archive.org/web/20050514070310/homepages.rootsweb.com/~sonyapl/essay/perkins_essay_part_one.htm). As this isn't really a reliable source, the article seems to fail WP:V and WP:NPOV at the very least. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for digging this out - Wow, that is really unreliable! It says the surname Perkins is first found in census rolls taken by the Kings of England beginning about 400 A.D. The only problems with this are that there were no surnames in 400 A.D., there were no Kings of England in 400 A.D.  There was no England in 400 A.D. and there are no surviving English records, census of otherwise, from 400 A.D.  Other than that the statement is perfectly accurate. Agricolae (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 00:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is based on verifiability, and this means we do not repeat sub-standard reasearch as fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Thomas Benolt in one of his Heraldic visitations does record "Supstes Petrus Morley alias Perkins" under "BY CHITTING AND PHILIPOTT FOR CAMDEN" "The four visitations of Berkshire made and taken by Thomas Benolte, Clarnceuc, anno 1532; by William Harvey, Clarnceux, anno 1566; by Henry Chiting, Chester herald, and John Philipott, Rouge dragon, for William Camden, Clarenceux, anno 1623; and by Elias Ashmole, Windsor herald, for Sir Edward Bysshe, Clarenceux, anno 1665-66" p. 118-119. This would, however, be a slender reed upon which to base an entire article, though I must say I did "enjoy" reading James Fulton Perkins, cited above. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Lest this be construed as establishing notability or even verifiability, this is just a family's genealogical pedigree from 1623. A royal official asked Francis Perkins to prove he had the right to use his coat of arms, and so Francis laid out this 9-generation pedigree, naming Peter as his earliest known ancestor, 300 years before.  This may be a reliable indication of what Francis thought his ancestry was, but that can't even be taken for granted given that he was in danger of losing his status as a member of the arms-bearing gentry.  It isn't even strong proof that Peter Perkins de Morley existed - many of these pedigrees devolve into fantasy long before they get to the 9th generation. Agricolae (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and others above. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.